Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Fast Forward
    • Latest Articles
    • Archive
  • Information
    • Instructions to Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • For Subscribers
    • For Advertisers
    • Terms & Conditions of Use
    • Permissions
  • Editorial Board
  • Alerts
    • Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Virtual Issues
  • Feedback
  • Other Publications
    • Drug Metabolism and Disposition
    • Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics
    • Molecular Pharmacology
    • Pharmacological Reviews
    • Pharmacology Research & Perspectives
    • ASPET

User menu

  • My alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Drug Metabolism & Disposition
  • Other Publications
    • Drug Metabolism and Disposition
    • Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics
    • Molecular Pharmacology
    • Pharmacological Reviews
    • Pharmacology Research & Perspectives
    • ASPET
  • My alerts
  • Log in
Drug Metabolism & Disposition

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Fast Forward
    • Latest Articles
    • Archive
  • Information
    • Instructions to Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • For Subscribers
    • For Advertisers
    • Terms & Conditions of Use
    • Permissions
  • Editorial Board
  • Alerts
    • Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Virtual Issues
  • Feedback
  • Visit dmd on Facebook
  • Follow dmd on Twitter
  • Follow ASPET on LinkedIn
Research ArticleArticle

Regulation of Hepatic Drug-Metabolizing Enzymes in Germ-Free Mice by Conventionalization and Probiotics

Felcy Pavithra Selwyn, Sunny Lihua Cheng, Curtis D. Klaassen and Julia Yue Cui
Drug Metabolism and Disposition February 2016, 44 (2) 262-274; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1124/dmd.115.067504
Felcy Pavithra Selwyn
Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sunny Lihua Cheng
Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Curtis D. Klaassen
Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Julia Yue Cui
Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF + SI
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Additional Files
  • Fig. 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 1.

    The 16S rRNA abundance of universal bacteria, as well as the eight bacterial components in VSL3 (B. breve, B. infantis, B. longum, L. acidophilus, L. bulgaricus, L. plantarum, L. paracasei, and S. thermophilus) in the large intestinal content. DNA samples from CV, CV+VSL3, GF, GF+VSL3, and GF+CV groups. Large intestinal content DNA was extracted as described in Materials and Methods, and 5.6 ng of total DNA was loaded in each well of the qPCR reactions. Results are expressed as delta-delta cycle value (calculated as 2^[−(Cq − average reference Cq)]) of the quantitative PCR (ddCq) as compared with the universal bacteria.

  • Fig. 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 2.

    The mRNA expression of the Cyp3a gene cluster (Cyp3a41a/b, 3a44, 3a11, 3a25/59, 3a57, and 3a16) in liver samples from CV, CV+VSL3, GF, GF+VSL3, and GF+CV groups. The genomic locations of the Cyp3a genes are displayed using the Integrated Genome Viewer. Reverse-transcription qPCR for each gene was performed as described in Materials and Methods. Data are expressed as the percentage of the housekeeping gene 18S rRNA. Statistical analysis was performed using analysis of variance followed by Duncan’s post-hoc test with P < 0.05 considered statistically significant. Treatment groups that are not statistically different are labeled with the same letter.

  • Fig. 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 3.

    The mRNA expression of the Cyp4a gene cluster (Cyp4a14, 4a10, 4a31, 4a32, 4x1, 4a29, 4a12a/b, 4a30b, and 4b1) in liver samples from CV, CV+VSL3, GF, GF+VSL3, and GF+CV groups. The genomic locations of the Cyp4 genes are displayed using the Integrated Genome Viewer. Reverse-transcription qPCR for each gene was performed as described in Materials and Methods. Data are expressed as the percentage of the housekeeping gene 18S rRNA. Statistical analysis was performed using analysis of variance followed by Duncan’s post-hoc test with P < 0.05 considered statistically significant. Treatment groups that are not statistically different are labeled with the same letter.

  • Fig. 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 4.

    (A) Protein expression in livers of CV and GF mice treated with vehicle or VSL3 (n = 3 per group). (B) Protein expression by western blots in livers of control CV, GF, and GF+CV mice (n = 3 per group). Western blotting of Cyp3a11, Cyp4a14, and β-actin proteins in hepatic microsomes was quantified as described in Materials and Methods. Quantification of protein band intensities after normalization to the loading control β-actin was performed using ImageJ software. Statistical analysis was performed using analysis of variance followed by Duncan’s post-hoc test with P < 0.05 considered statistically significant. Treatment groups that are not statistically different are labeled with the same letter.

  • Fig. 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 5.

    Enzyme activities of Cyp3a (A) and Cyp4a (B) in crude membranes of livers from CV, GF, and GF+CV mice. P450 enzyme activity determination was carried out according to the manufacturer’s protocol, as described in Materials and Methods. *Statistically significant differences as compared with CV mice.

  • Fig. 6.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 6.

    The mRNA expression of Cyp1a2, 4f18, 4v3, and P450 oxidoreductase (Por) in liver samples from CV, CV+VSL3, GF, GF+VSL3, and GF+CV groups. Reverse-transcription qPCR for each gene was performed as described in Materials and Methods. Data are expressed as the percentage of the housekeeping gene 18S rRNA. Statistical analysis was performed using analysis of variance followed by Duncan’s post-hoc test with P < 0.05 considered statistically significant. Treatment groups that are not statistically different are labeled with the same letter.

  • Fig. 7.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 7.

    The mRNA expression of Adh1, Aldh1a1, Aldh1b1, Aldh3a2, Ces1e/1g, Ces2a, and Fmo5 in liver samples from CV, CV+VSL3, GF, GF+VSL3, and GF+CV groups. Reverse-transcription qPCR for each gene was performed as described in Materials and Methods. Data are expressed as the percentage of the housekeeping gene 18S rRNA. Statistical analysis was performed using analysis of variance followed by Duncan’s post-hoc test with P < 0.05 considered statistically significant. Treatment groups that are not statistically different are labeled with the same letter.

  • Fig. 8.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 8.

    The mRNA expression of Gstpi, Gstm1-m3, Gsto1, Ugt1a9, Ugt2a3, Ugt2b1, Ugt2b36/37/38, and Sult5a1 in liver samples from CV, CV+VSL3, GF, GF+VSL3, and GF+CV groups. Reverse-transcription qPCR for each gene was performed as described in Materials and Methods. Data are expressed as the percentage of the housekeeping gene 18S rRNA. Statistical analysis was performed using analysis of variance followed by Duncan’s post-hoc test with P < 0.05 considered statistically significant. Treatment groups that are not statistically different are labeled with the same letter.

  • Fig. 9.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 9.

    ChIP-qPCR of the DNA binding for PXR and RNA-Pol-II to the Cyp3a gene loci, as well as PPARα and RNA-Pol-II to the Cyp4a gene loci. For PXR, sites 1–5 were selected based on the reanalysis of a published PXR-ChIP sequencing experiment in control adult conventional male mouse livers (Cui et al., 2010), and qPCR primers were designed centering the known PXR-DNA binding motifs (DR-3, DR-4, ER-6, and ER-8) in these regions. For PPARα, sites 6–10 were selected based on the reanalysis of a published PPARα ChIP sequencing experiment in control adult conventional male mouse livers (NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus Database query data set GSE61817; Lee et al., 2014), and qPCR primers were designed centering the known PPARα-DNA binding motif DR-2 in these regions. For RNA-Pol-II, qPCR primers were designed centering the TATA box within the promoters of the target genes. ChIP assays were performed using specific antibodies against PXR, PPARα, RNA-Pol-II, and IgG as described inMaterials and Methods. Data were first normalized to genomic DNA input, and then expressed as fold enrichment over IgG control.

Tables

  • Figures
  • Additional Files
    • View popup
    TABLE 1

    Summary of DPGs that are differentially regulated in response to gut microbiota modifiers

    Gut Microbiota ModifiersUpregulated Drug-Metabolizing EnzymesDownregulated Drug-Metabolizing Enzymes
    VSL3 (as compared with control groups of the same mouse model)Phase I: Cyp4v3 (4.26-fold), Adh1 (2.23-fold), Ces2a (2.07-fold)Phase I: Cyp3a44 (67.42%), Cyp3a11 (59.88%)
    Phase II: none observedPhase II: Gstm1 (65.50%), Gstm2 (49.86%), Gstm3 (61.58%), Gsto1 (63.62%), Ugt1a9a (54.41%), Ugt2a3a (52.24%)
    Germ free (as compared with control CV mice)Phase I: Cyp4a cluster (Cyp4a14 [9.84-fold], 4a10 [53.34-fold], 4a31 [5.86-fold], 4a32 [6.06-fold], 4a12a/b [2.20-fold]), Cyp4f17 (1.86-fold), Cyp4f14 (5.30-fold), Cyp4f18 (19.83-fold), Cyp4v3 (2.88-fold), Cyp1a2 (1.64-fold), Aldh1a1 (2.03-fold), Aldh3a1 (3.08-fold), Aldh3a2 (2.03-fold)Phase I: Cyp3a cluster (Cyp3a41a/b [16.18%], 3a44 [11.33%], 3a11 [10.69%], 3a25/59 [32.44%]), Aldh1b1 (41.30%), Fmo5 (54.43%)
    Phase II: Ugt1a9 (1.68-fold), Ugt2b1 (1.83-fold)Phase II: Gstpi (57.71%), Gstm1 (53.15%), Gstm2 (29.70%), Gstm3 (34.28%), Gsto1 (49.36%), Sult5a1 (36.39%)
    Conventionalization (as compared with control GF mice)Phase I: Cyp3a cluster (Cyp3a41a/b [6.38-fold], 3a44 [1.60-fold], 3a11 [7.56-fold], 3a25/59, 3a16 [7.12-fold]), Cyp4f17 (1.47-fold), Ces2a (1.86-fold)Phase I: Cyp4a cluster (Cyp4a14 [0.98%], 4a10 [6.51%], 4a31 [11.42%], 4a32 [7.43%], 4a12a/b [59.22%]), Aldh3a2 [20.17%], Ces1e/1g [42.60%], Akr1d1 (39.02%)
    Phase II: Gstpi (2.01-fold), Ugt2a36/37/38 (6.01-fold), Sult5a1 (2.88-fold)Phase II: Ugt1a9 (53.19%)
    • ↵a *Differentially regulated in GF livers.

Additional Files

  • Figures
  • Tables
  • Data Supplement

    Files in this Data Supplement:

    • Supplemental Data -

      Supplemental Figure 1 - The 16S rRNA abundance of universal bacteria, as well as the 8 bacterial components in VSL3, namely B. breve, B. infantis, B. longum, L. acidophilus, L. bulgaricus, L. plantarum, L. paracasei, and S. thermophilus, in the VSL3 DNA

      Supplemental Figure 2 - The mRNA expression of the Cyp4f gene cluster (namely Cyp4f17, 4f16, 4f37, 4f15, 4f14, 4f13, 4f39, and 4f41-ps) in liver samples from CV, CV+VSL3, GF, GF+VSL3, and GF+CV groups

      Supplemental Figure 3 - The mRNA expression of other phase-I enzymes, namely Cyp2b10, Cyp3a13, Aldh1a7, Aldh4a1, Aldh7a1, Ces2c, and Ces3a, in liver samples from CV, CV+VSL3, GF, GF+VSL3, and GF+CV groups

      Supplemental Figure 4 - The mRNA expression of other phase-I enzymes, namely Fmo1, Fmo2, Fmo4, Akr1b8, Akr1c13, Akr1c19, Akr1d1, Ephx1, and Nqo1, in liver samples from CV, CV+VSL3, GF, GF+VSL3, and GF+CV groups

      Supplemental Figure 5 - The mRNA expression of other phase-II Gst enzymes, namely Gsta1, Gsta3, Gsta4, Gstm4, Gstt1, Gstt2, and Gstt3, in liver samples from CV, CV+VSL3, GF, GF+VSL3, and GF+CV groups

      Supplemental Figure 6 - The mRNA expression of other phase-II Ugt and Sult enzymes, namely Ugt1a1, Ugt1a5, Ugt1a6, Ugt1a7, Ugt2b5, Ugt2b34, Ugt2b35, Ugt2b36, Sult1a1, Sult1b1, Sult1d1, and Papss2 (enzyme that produces the co-substrate for sulfation reactions), in liver samples from CV, CV+VSL3, GF, GF+VSL3, and GF+CV groups

      Supplemental Figure 7 - Genomic locations of positive PXR (A) and PPARα (B) DNA binding sites to the Cyp3a (A) and Cyp4a (B) gene clusters, respectively

      Supplemental Table 1 - Primer Sequences and Specificity for the bacterial 16S rRNA quantification

      Supplemental Table 2 - RT-qPCR primer sequences

      Supplemental Table 3 - ChIP-qPCR primers, targeted genomic regions and motifs

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Drug Metabolism and Disposition: 44 (2)
Drug Metabolism and Disposition
Vol. 44, Issue 2
1 Feb 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Editorial Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Drug Metabolism & Disposition article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Regulation of Hepatic Drug-Metabolizing Enzymes in Germ-Free Mice by Conventionalization and Probiotics
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Drug Metabolism & Disposition
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Drug Metabolism & Disposition.
Citation Tools
Research ArticleArticle

Bacteria and Hepatic Drug-Processing Genes

Felcy Pavithra Selwyn, Sunny Lihua Cheng, Curtis D. Klaassen and Julia Yue Cui
Drug Metabolism and Disposition February 1, 2016, 44 (2) 262-274; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1124/dmd.115.067504

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Research ArticleArticle

Bacteria and Hepatic Drug-Processing Genes

Felcy Pavithra Selwyn, Sunny Lihua Cheng, Curtis D. Klaassen and Julia Yue Cui
Drug Metabolism and Disposition February 1, 2016, 44 (2) 262-274; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1124/dmd.115.067504
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Acknowledgments
    • Authorship Contributions
    • Footnotes
    • Abbreviations
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF + SI
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Abundant expression of OCT2, MATE1, OAT1, OAT3, PEPT2, BCRP, MDR1 and xCT transporters in blood-arachnoid barrier of pig, and polarized localizations at CSF- and blood-facing plasma membranes
  • Pharmacokinetics of Organic Cation Transporter 1 (OCT1) Substrates in Oct1/2 Knockout Mice and Species Difference in Hepatic OCT1-mediated Uptake
  • Human Cytochrome P450 1A1 Adapts Active Site for Atypical Nonplanar Substrate
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

  • Home
  • Alerts
Facebook   Twitter   LinkedIn   RSS

Navigate

  • Current Issue
  • Fast Forward by date
  • Fast Forward by section
  • Latest Articles
  • Archive
  • Search for Articles
  • Feedback
  • ASPET

More Information

  • About DMD
  • Editorial Board
  • Instructions to Authors
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Customized Alerts
  • RSS Feeds
  • Subscriptions
  • Permissions
  • Terms & Conditions of Use

ASPET's Other Journals

  • Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics
  • Molecular Pharmacology
  • Pharmacological Reviews
  • Pharmacology Research & Perspectives
ISSN 1521-009X (Online)

Copyright © 2019 by the American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics